The Open Mat Forum

Wrestling => International => Topic started by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 10:03:40 AM

Title: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 10:03:40 AM
Dlagnev likes drama doesn't he.Sheesh.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: a guest on August 20, 2016, 10:38:36 AM
86 kilos.

Three out of the four wrestlers in the quarters were born in Russia.

Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: a guest on August 20, 2016, 10:41:03 AM
Sadulaev - Dagestan
Sharifov - Dagestan
Yaşar - Ingushetia


Cox - Missouri
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: buck on August 20, 2016, 11:10:59 AM
Cox lost 2-1
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: Jointdoc55 on August 20, 2016, 11:13:56 AM
I'm only able to access "the gold zone", which has 6 screens. She happened to show the Cox match, but did not show Trevel match.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 11:19:06 AM
2 secs too late.  Well he goes for bronze
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: buck on August 20, 2016, 11:19:29 AM
Tervel was teched in 30 seconds against Iran.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 11:21:14 AM
Didn't show it because it was only 28 seconds.  TD and 4 guts.  Dlagnev just dropped to knees to give up the TD.  "Wrestle ?  I'd rather take a nap."
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: buck on August 20, 2016, 11:23:36 AM
He's injured.  Of course he's been injured for a year.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: Jointdoc55 on August 20, 2016, 11:26:32 AM
He won the 2 previous matches. I couldn't watch those matches, but did he look injured in those matches?
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: FalconWrestlingKY on August 20, 2016, 11:28:21 AM
Cox lost 2-1

I don't like that shot clock ones are weighted higher than push out ones. Especially with the way we call shot clocks, either make both points equal weight or change the way we call passivity. For the record I don't exactly mind the current shot clock/passivity system when implemented correctly but when it is implemented improperly we run into frustrating situations like this.

Also the way Cox was wrestling it's almost as if he didn't realize he was down on criteria, no re-attacks after decent shots for example. part of that could be exhaustion but even then you have to train for that.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: fsgrecofolk on August 20, 2016, 11:31:08 AM
The shot clock is too subjective.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: SingletSlinger on August 20, 2016, 11:46:59 AM
I love that when the USA loses we immediately attack the rules.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: fsgrecofolk on August 20, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
I am not a shot clock fan.  J'den put up a great fight and should have converted those shots.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: OkieSpladle on August 20, 2016, 12:20:34 PM
Cox apparently confirmed that he thought he was winning, despite the coaches saying they were screaming that he was down (and the scoreboard showed the same).

Penalties have always out-ranked on mat action and the shot-clock IS a penalty.  We can talk about the way its called and I'd largely agree (I have a theory I might write about after the Olympics as to why it appears so strange), but it is consistent with all the other rules.

Rules are arbitrary.  ALL rules.  These are made up competitions.  Any change would be good in some ways and bad in others.  Arguing that we don't like the rules because our guy didn't know them/understand how to win the match is just whining.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: BigJ on August 20, 2016, 12:26:14 PM
The shot clock is too subjective.

Agreed, his opponent defended for 6 minutes and won.  Wasn't placed on clock in 2nd.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: FalconWrestlingKY on August 20, 2016, 12:28:14 PM
I remember watching Cox fail to get a push out early in the match and I thought "his lack of freestyle experience may hurt him today"

Sure enough it did, he was obviously wrestling passive after he got the push out and it makes sense he thought he was ahead.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: ctc on August 20, 2016, 03:02:10 PM
Cox apparently confirmed that he thought he was winning, despite the coaches saying they were screaming that he was down (and the scoreboard showed the same).

Penalties have always out-ranked on mat action and the shot-clock IS a penalty.  We can talk about the way its called and I'd largely agree (I have a theory I might write about after the Olympics as to why it appears so strange), but it is consistent with all the other rules.

Rules are arbitrary.  ALL rules.  These are made up competitions.  Any change would be good in some ways and bad in others.  Arguing that we don't like the rules because our guy didn't know them/understand how to win the match is just whining.
Way too subjective of a penalty.  Cox messed up late by not knowing the situation and not listening to his coaches.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: FalconWrestlingKY on August 20, 2016, 04:01:10 PM
Can we all agree that stalling isn't much better?

Not saying any of us think stalling is better than passivity (I greatly prefer the latter myself) but we have our own subjective penalties in America that are a problem
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 04:18:58 PM
WOW !
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: Jointdoc55 on August 20, 2016, 04:22:35 PM
Amazing finish to the Cox match! I'm not certain that it was a TD, but he did take all the shots in the match, as I recall.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: FalconWrestlingKY on August 20, 2016, 04:43:03 PM
It's one of those 50/50 calls but the fact that a call was actually overturned says a lot about the strength of that takedown.

But I honestly wouldn't have been surprised if they hadn't decided to reward the takedown
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: fsgrecofolk on August 20, 2016, 04:46:01 PM
It really was a coin flip type call.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 04:54:52 PM
Help me understand these international rules.  I understand, he who scores last when it ends in a tie, wins - most of the time.

In his loss to the Turk, Cox gave up the first point on the shot clock.  0-1.  Cox then ties it with an offensive point with the push out.  But he loses because of giving up the shot clock point first.

In his bronze match, Cox scores the first point on the shot clock 1-0. The Cuban is about to tie it off the shot clock and according to the ref does with no TD before the whistle, 1-1.  Now according to the rules, since the Cuban scored on the shot clock last e would have won if not for the successful challenge.

Given these two circumstances, the offensive push out point carries less weight than a passivity point off the shot clock.  Is that correct?
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: FalconWrestlingKY on August 20, 2016, 05:01:20 PM
Help me understand these international rules.  I understand, he who scores last when it ends in a tie, wins - most of the time.

In his loss to the Turk, Cox gave up the first point on the shot clock.  0-1.  Cox then ties it with an offensive point with the push out.  But he loses because of giving up the shot clock point first.

In his bronze match, Cox scores the first point on the shot clock 1-0. The Cuban is about to tie it off the shot clock and according to the ref does with no TD before the whistle, 1-1.  Now according to the rules, since the Cuban scored on the shot clock last e would have won if not for the successful challenge.

Given these two circumstances, the offensive push out point carries less weight than a passivity point off the shot clock.  Is that correct?

Yes the push out carries less weight than the shot clock penalty. It's something I have issues with because I feel we have an issue where the spirit of the law is counteracting the practice of the law. Honestly I think Greco does a better job of calling passivity than freestyle does and the Cox loss in the semifinals shows that.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: RYou on August 20, 2016, 05:18:15 PM
lasted 31 seconds this time.  Injury ?
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: Jointdoc55 on August 20, 2016, 05:19:40 PM
lasted 31 seconds this time.  Injury ?
Must be. I saw him since as the match ended, but he didn't limp or hold any body parts.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: OkieSpladle on August 20, 2016, 05:43:08 PM
Help me understand these international rules.  I understand, he who scores last when it ends in a tie, wins - most of the time.

In his loss to the Turk, Cox gave up the first point on the shot clock.  0-1.  Cox then ties it with an offensive point with the push out.  But he loses because of giving up the shot clock point first.

In his bronze match, Cox scores the first point on the shot clock 1-0. The Cuban is about to tie it off the shot clock and according to the ref does with no TD before the whistle, 1-1.  Now according to the rules, since the Cuban scored on the shot clock last e would have won if not for the successful challenge.

Given these two circumstances, the offensive push out point carries less weight than a passivity point off the shot clock.  Is that correct?

Yes, because the shot clock point is a caution and a point.  If the score is tied and the size of the scores is the same (not one guy has a 2 and the other guy has scored 1 twice), number of cautions is the next criteria.  That is why its worth "more".  The caution is often glossed over, but its why the official puts his other hand out while awarding the 1.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: lkwdsteve on August 20, 2016, 07:42:11 PM
Help me understand these international rules.  I understand, he who scores last when it ends in a tie, wins - most of the time.

In his loss to the Turk, Cox gave up the first point on the shot clock.  0-1.  Cox then ties it with an offensive point with the push out.  But he loses because of giving up the shot clock point first.

In his bronze match, Cox scores the first point on the shot clock 1-0. The Cuban is about to tie it off the shot clock and according to the ref does with no TD before the whistle, 1-1.  Now according to the rules, since the Cuban scored on the shot clock last e would have won if not for the successful challenge.

Given these two circumstances, the offensive push out point carries less weight than a passivity point off the shot clock.  Is that correct?

Yes, because the shot clock point is a caution and a point.  If the score is tied and the size of the scores is the same (not one guy has a 2 and the other guy has scored 1 twice), number of cautions is the next criteria.  That is why its worth "more".  The caution is often glossed over, but its why the official puts his other hand out while awarding the 1.
I thought the shot clock is called for a second caution. If memory serves both wrestlers had a caution but J'den got a second one and was put on the clock.Maybe I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: OkieSpladle on August 20, 2016, 09:53:32 PM
Help me understand these international rules.  I understand, he who scores last when it ends in a tie, wins - most of the time.

In his loss to the Turk, Cox gave up the first point on the shot clock.  0-1.  Cox then ties it with an offensive point with the push out.  But he loses because of giving up the shot clock point first.

In his bronze match, Cox scores the first point on the shot clock 1-0. The Cuban is about to tie it off the shot clock and according to the ref does with no TD before the whistle, 1-1.  Now according to the rules, since the Cuban scored on the shot clock last e would have won if not for the successful challenge.

Given these two circumstances, the offensive push out point carries less weight than a passivity point off the shot clock.  Is that correct?

Yes, because the shot clock point is a caution and a point.  If the score is tied and the size of the scores is the same (not one guy has a 2 and the other guy has scored 1 twice), number of cautions is the next criteria.  That is why its worth "more".  The caution is often glossed over, but its why the official puts his other hand out while awarding the 1.
I thought the shot clock is called for a second caution. If memory serves both wrestlers had a caution but J'den got a second one and was put on the clock.Maybe I'm wrong.

Difference between a passivity warning and a caution.  The second time you are warned for passivity, you go on the clock.  If the clock expires, you get a caution (little yellow mark on the scoreboard.  Cautions are used for criteria, but not warnings.  3 cautions (of any kind) end the match by DQ.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: a guest on August 20, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
I love that when the USA loses we immediately attack the rules.

I say we suit them up like the fencers.

Electrodes and wires throughout the singlet and shoes.

An electronic barrier along the mat to signify the boundaries.

Use the same eagle-eye technology that they use in tennis to show if a ball is in or out.

Let the computers determine in-out of bounds.

Let the computer determine the takedowns.

Keep the human element out of reffing.

That is, until someone figures out how to hack it.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: SingletSlinger on August 21, 2016, 04:20:26 AM
Tie breaking criteria
1. Big scores, 2 > 1 + 1
2. Least amount of cautions, shot clock is a violation
3. Last score

These has been the criteria since we went to the best of 3 periods with 1 and 2 switching 3 years ago.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: SingletSlinger on August 21, 2016, 04:32:34 AM
It has been well documented that Dlagnev has had some serious back issues. He only was on the mat five times in the past 4 months.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: Jointdoc55 on August 21, 2016, 07:36:43 AM
It has been well documented that Dlagnev has had some serious back issues. He only was on the mat five times in the past 4 months.
This from the Ohio State website:
"“I am not sure about my body. I wasn’t planning on wrestling out there (in the bronze-medal bout). I kind of got talked into going out there. Hopefully it means something to somebody. I didn’t work out one day of training camp. My back locked up right when I got on the plane to leave to the Olympics. It has been a year fade. I made the Trials, but since then I have had five practices in the last four months. I have been just holding on, holding on hopefully for one big day. It didn’t go my way.”[/size][/size]
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: ViseGrip on August 21, 2016, 02:19:39 PM
Why wasn't he pulled for an able bodied competitor?
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: SingletSlinger on August 21, 2016, 09:39:44 PM
Why wasn't he pulled for an able bodied competitor?

Because he won the spot.
Title: Re: Cox & Dlagnev
Post by: OkieSpladle on August 22, 2016, 10:09:43 AM
Why wasn't he pulled for an able bodied competitor?

Any of our able bodied competitors lose in the first round with the draw he got.  He earned the spot and won two matches.  Its too bad his body didn't hold out for one more match because, if it had, he'd have medaled.